Re: Abortion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:31:42 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Anderson) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:28:56 GMT, BlackWater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A fertilized cell is NOT a "person" - but a 8.9 month
>>>>fetus has everything required to be so except a seperate
>>>>mailing address.
>>>
>>>Standard Pro-Life lie:  A term fetus and a newborn baby are just the
>>>same, only a change of location.
>>>Fact:  The changes that occur at birth to transform a fetus into a
>>>biologically separate and self-contained organism are massive and
>>>irreversable.
>>
>>   Well, not 'irreversible' really ... 
>
>Don't lie to me.  The changes that occur at birth cannot be reversed
>and the baby cannot be placed back into the womb.

   Of course it can ... indeed they ARE. There's more 
   and more surgery on fetuses - some of which involves
   literally moving the fetus out to where they can get
   a good working angle on it. In such situations, the
   kid is "born", and then "un-born" again. 

>>   And not 'massive' where it REALLY COUNTS, between
>>   the ears. In the end, THAT'S where 'personhood'
>>   really exists - the way the mind is set-up. 
>
>Bullshit.  I am not 1.6 persons.

   Depends. Do you currently carry a 6-month old
   fetus ? If so, then you're 1.6(6) persons. 

>An idiot is not 1/5 th of a person.

   Unless he's 1/5 of the way through gestation ...
   although, by my own guideline, 1/5th is still
   in the "tissue" catagory. Even then, if someone
   commits a violent act on his mother and causes
   damage to or abortion of said fetus, then that
   aggressor gets stuck with additional criminal
   charges in most states. 

>You sound like those liberals like Singer who claim that a person is
>not a person until they can pass various tests of cognetive abilities.

   So today I'm a 'liberal' eh ? 

   To a point, I'd agree with Singer - however you've
   gotta wonder just how difficult those 'tests' might
   be. Personally, I'd give the testee a lot of slack.
   Clearly, there come points along the coma scale
   where the State feels it's not looking at a citizen
   anymore - even if the rest of the body is healthy.
   So, congitive abilities DO count in law even now.

>>>> Clearly "personhood" - moral and 
>>>>hopefully legal - is something that *develops* as the
>>>>pregnancy advances. 
>>>
>>>Clearly bullshit.  A person, in the meaning of a natural human person
>>>AKA a human being, is that which is born, human, and alive.
>>
>>   Depends on todays definition rather heavily, doesn't it ?
>
>Nope.  Been the definition for all of human history.

   Things change. I think biotechnology is about to
   rock your world ... 

>>   Clearly there's a new definition taking shape. You can
>>   hear it happening if you bother to listen. 
>
>I keep *asking* for someone to state this 'new defintion'.  All I get
>in reply are lies and insults.

   I've been going over a number of points in
   this 'new definition' all through this thread.
   If you haven't heard then you aren't listening.

>>>"Personhood", whatever that means, clearly is conferred when the
>>>person first comes into existance -- at birth.  
>>
>>   I'd say it's the ability to think, feel, emote and
>>   generally experience the universe in some manner we
>>   can recognize as intelligent, aware, 'being'.
>
>Which would make that lady in Flordia is not a person by your
>standards.  Sorry, but I must disagree..

   IF she's as vegged-out as some claim, then she's
   not a person. However, there has been SOME reason
   to think there may still be a spark of 'personhood'
   in there somewhere - so it was right for the governor
   to demand one last look at the situation. We await
   the results. 

>>   Your
>>   def is practical medieval. It may serve your political
>>   agenda, but it's overly-simplistic crap and you ought
>>   to know it.
>
>Like I said, lies and insults.

   I've been giving you the benifit of the doubt ... but
   at this point I'm not sure whether it's worth it. Perhaps
   the invective and insults should commence in proper usenet
   fashion ? 

>>   So are the defs used by the rabid anti-
>>   choice factions. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere
>>   in the middle. Inconvenient, true, but realistic.
>
>"Realistic" does not mean accepting lies.

   You've never really clarified what these "lies"
   may be. Perhaps you don't know ....